Ted Grant

Labour Party Endorses Truce —

Not Reflection of Rank and File Feeling

The Labour Party conference met this year when a
critical attitude on the part of the mass of the population towards
the capitalist class and the government, has become widespread
throughout the country. It met when the military situation has
changed sharply in favour of Anglo-American imperialism and when
the possibility of the war ending looms ahead in a sharp form. With
this, the working class is beginning to ask what sort of world the
rulers are preparing for after the war.

What will be the reward for all this blood and toil, tears and
sweat, is the thought that grips every working man and woman. The
Labour workers remember how they were fooled by promises in the
last war, which were not carried out after the “glorious
victory” had been won.

The real role of the Labour Party in the coalition was clearly
demonstrated by the speech of one of the delegates, Alderman Luke
Hogan of Liverpool.

“The Labour members of the Government had
been given the most ‘sticky jobs’. Bevin, Morrison and
Dalton were doing jobs that the Prime Minister knew he could not
have got a Tory to carry through successfully.”

No better description of the role of Labour in the
government could possibly be given. They have been given the job of
doing all the dirty work for the bosses, and what have they
received in return? Ask any rank and file worker in factory, mine
or workshop, and the reply would be given in unequivocal terms. The
capitalists have taken everything and given nothing in return. That
this is so is indicated by the position on the Trades Dispute Act
which was revealed at the Conference. The T.U.C. has been
negotiating for months, and years, since the Coalition was formed,
for a repeal of some of the provisions of the Trades Dispute Act.
They have not even demanded the repeal of this obnoxious and
vindictive anti-trade union and anti-working class Act, as would
seem an elementary demand which should be made in what is supposed
to be a 50-50 coalition. But the capitalists are not prepared to
budge an inch. They are preparing systematically to attack the
workers’ standards of living as savagely, or even more
savagely, after the war, than they are doing at the present time.
They are not prepared to make a concession with regard to
affiliation of civil servants to the T.U.C., which would strengthen
the unity of the working class.

Concessions can only be extracted from the capitalists when they
are forced to give them by the pressure of the workers. Even the
super-constitutionalist, Sir Walter Citrine, who could never be
accused of being in favour of direct action, has been pushed from
behind by the postal workers and compelled to recommend
“unconstitutional” action and to support the defying of
the law by the postal workers in applying for re-affiliation.
Because of the bold stand of the postal workers, it is possible
that a section of the Act may be repealed. The capitalists may fear
complications if they do not retreat on this question. But this in
itself is an indication of what the coalition is worth to the
workers.

The political truce

The first item on the agenda was the most important one for the
Conference — the Political Truce. The resolution for its
ending was defeated by a big majority: on a card vote 2,243,000
votes to 374,000 votes. A large number of trade union
representatives and individual Labour Parties abstained from
voting. At first sight this may seem surprising, compared with the
result of last year’s conference when the truce, despite all
the pleas of the Labour leaders, was only upheld by the narrow
majority of 66,000 votes. What has happened in the meantime to make
this big difference?

In the ordinary course of events, with the extension of
discontent with the government, it might have been expected that
the truce would have been ended this year. But it must be
remembered that only in an indirect and distorted way are the
feelings of the workers reflected at a conference of this sort. The
bulk of the delegates were old men, who in many cases have lost
touch with the working class and have ceased to reflect their
moods. Not only that. The vote last year reflected the frustration
and the feeling of resentment which pervades the workers. But they
did not understand the need for a bold fighting programme on which
to appeal to the workers. Those delegates who voted for the ending
of the truce last year, at the same time voted their support of
Churchill. Such was the confusion.

This year, the leadership used as their main argument for the
continuance of the truce, that to break it would mean the end of
the present government. This of course is perfectly correct. But
instead of accepting the challenge and putting forward the demand
for a general election, which could be contested on a fighting
Socialist programme of struggle against reaction and fascism at
home and abroad, which would gain them an overwhelming majority at
the polls — the “Left” wing argued in favour of
ending the truce and staying in the government simultaneously! You
can’t have your cake and eat it! Better frank capitulation to the
capitalists than an absurd and dishonest position of that sort.

The only expressed opposition to the war, came from Rhys Davies,
who spoke demanding the end of the truce and put a purely pacifist
case. The Labour bureaucracy seem to like getting him to speak at
conferences, as they apparently look on him as a useful Aunt Sally.
Delegates will obviously not be won over by his sterile and utopian
case.

The oppositional pressure of the workers has not yet reached the
stage of forcing the Labour Party, even the demagogues of the Left,
to an open break with the Tories. But this year’s vote is not a
reflection of the feelings of the rank and file of the Labour
workers. The Labour and TU bureaucrats can manipulate a vote. But
the final decision does not rest with them. The question of whether
the truce will continue or not, will be decided by the events of
the class struggle in the near future. Any big movement of the
workers would put a strain on the coalition which it is not likely
to survive. It seemed unlikely that the coalition would survive
from the last conference to this. It is even more unlikely that the
coalition will last until next year’s conference, despite this
year’s big vote. The workers have not yet said their last word.

The real position of the Labour leaders is shown by the fact
that not only are they opposed to a Socialist programme now, but in
actual fact have indicated their position in advance for after the
war as well. In his speech Attlee said:

“We reaffirm our view that over s great
field of activity there must by public control. In other fields
private enterprise will continue to operate, but in conformity with
the well-being of the community.”

Unanimous decisions on increases in Service Pay and
Old Age Pensions were passed. None of the delegates was so rude and
awkward as to enquire what had happened to the resolutions which
were also passed unanimously on the same questions last year! It
would have put the leadership on the spot. Immediately after last
year’s conference Attlee in Parliament stated that the government
could not consider a rise “at the present time”. Only
after a long period was a rise given, the magnificent sum of 6d a
day. The fate of the demand for Old Age Pensions increases has been
similar. The debate on the Beveridge Report revealed the position
on reforms and fundamental changes better than anything else. An
amendment on the Beveridge Report was moved by Sidney Silverman,
Labour MP for Nelson and Colne, expressing according to the
Daily-Herald report,

“profound distrust at the government’s
attitude to the Beveridge Plan in Parliament. It called on the
Parliamentary Labour Party to continue its efforts to secure
‘immediate legislation’ to implement the principles of the
scheme”.

This amendment was rejected by 1,715,000 votes to
955,000 votes and the Executive resolution on the Report was
carried. This indicated rather vaguely and ambiguously in the words
of the Herald report that:

“While recognising the need for further
examination of some of the proposals, the resolution called for
speedy preparations of the necessary legislation, so that the
scheme ‘should be ready to be put into operation at the end
of hostilities.’”

Thus even the meagre proposals for social reform
envisaged by the Beveridge Scheme were not to be demanded from the
capitalists as a condition for co-operation. The Labour leaders
could gain a majority at a general election on this issue alone, if
they repealed the real position of the government of capitalists
and bankers.

The Communist Party Affiliation was rejected by a vote of
1,951,000 votes to 712,000. The main argument of Morrison against
it, was the false one that the CP based itself on a revolutionary
philosophy. This of course is incorrect, as today the CP is far to
the Right of the LP itself. Even if true, the Labour Party as the
party that claims to be the political expression of the organised
workers, should have room in its ranks for all tendencies to
express themselves. The entry of the Stalinists would have been the
means for facilitating the exposure of both Stalinists and Labour
bureaucrats in the eyes of the workers.

At the time of writing this (Wednesday) article, some important
questions remain to be discussed including the Post War World.

The basic need for the workers in the next period lies in the
demand that Labour should break the coalition with the bosses and
wage a struggle for Power on a Socialist Programme. Workers’
International League will fight side by side with the Labour
workers to achieve this aim. On this road lies the next step
forward to convince the workers through their own experience of the
correctness of our ideas and the necessity of a revolutionary
socialist organisation to lead them to workers’ Power and
Socialism.